In OCCA case No. F-2001-1488, Robert Wesley Choate appealed his conviction for manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a precursor, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction for manufacturing but reversed the conviction for possession of a precursor, which means that his punishment for that charge was dismissed. One member of the court dissented from this decision.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1048, Wendy Leann Underwood appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of the case: Wendy Leann Underwood was found guilty by a jury for having methamphetamine after she had committed other crimes before. The jury decided she should go to prison for 40 years. However, Wendy thought there were problems with how her case was handled, so she asked a higher court to review it. Wendy raised several points for why she believed her conviction and sentence should be changed: 1. She argued that the police search which found the drugs was not done properly, so the drugs should not have been used against her in court. She also said her lawyer did not fight this issue well enough. 2. She thought the trial did not properly explain to the jury that a person who testified against her was an accomplice and that there should have been supporting evidence for what that person said. 3. Wendy pointed out that many of her past criminal cases were actually part of the same situation, so they should not count as multiple offenses. 4. She believed her punishment should have been based on specific drug laws instead of general laws for repeat offenders. 5. Wendy thought she should get a lighter sentence because of new laws that help non-violent offenders. After looking carefully at everything, the court found that the police search was legal and that Wendy's lawyer did not make a mistake by not challenging it. They also decided that the person who testified against Wendy was not someone who required additional proof, so that was fine too. However, the court agreed that too many of Wendy's past convictions were counted, since many of them happened during the same event. Therefore, they decided to change her sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They felt that was fair based on the laws. Regarding the other issues raised by Wendy, the court determined that the punishment was appropriately based on the laws and that the new laws did not apply to her case. Thus, they kept her conviction but made her time in prison shorter. In conclusion, her conviction stood, but her time in prison was reduced to 30 years, with one judge thinking it should be even less.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1243, Michael Gerald Turner appealed his conviction for multiple crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm some of Turner's convictions and dismiss others. Specifically, the court upheld his convictions for Assault and Battery Upon a Police Officer, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Driving While Impaired, and Attempted Escape, but reversed and dismissed his convictions for Personal Injury DUI and DUI due to issues with evidence and double jeopardy. One member of the court dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2003-22, Desean Terrell Poore appealed his conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Murder and Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the conviction for Accessory After the Fact to First Degree Manslaughter should be reversed and dismissed, as it was found to be double punishment for a single action. The court also ordered corrections to the judgment's wording concerning the prior felony conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1348, Holly Ann Glasgow appealed her conviction for two counts of Robbery by Force and Fear. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on Count One and remand it to the district court to change the charge to Receiving Stolen Property with a reduced sentence. The conviction on Count Two was affirmed. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-106, Christian Satterfield appealed his conviction for Attempted Manufacture of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Count I), Possession of a Precursor (Count II), and Possession of a Firearm While Committing a Felony (Count III). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Counts I and III and reverse Count II with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Satterfield was found guilty of attempting to make a dangerous drug and also having items that could be used to make that drug. During the trial, Satterfield's jury said he should be in prison for a total of forty-two years. The court also decided he should pay a big fine. Satterfield's lawyers argued that he shouldn’t be punished for both attempting to make a drug and having items to help make that drug because it was unfair to be punished twice for similar actions. The court agreed and decided that the conviction for having those items should be reversed. They also looked at whether some rules were followed in Satterfield's trial. They decided that even though the lawyers from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics had a big role in the case, it didn’t mean Satterfield didn’t get a fair trial. They said the jury had the right instructions about punishments, despite the defense’s claims. The court found evidence used in the trial was okay and supported Satterfield's conviction for using a gun while committing a felony. In the end, Satterfield's sentences for the first and last counts of his conviction were kept, but they reversed the second count, which meant the charges for possession of a precursor were dropped. The judges all agreed on most parts of the decision, but one judge felt that the way the jury was told about the punishment wasn’t right and thought Satterfield should have received a shorter sentence based on newer laws.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-9, Amy Michelle Green appealed her conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and modify the sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. Amy was found guilty after a trial where the jury decided that she was guilty of having illegal drugs and drug-related items. The jury decided her punishment should be ten years in prison for the drugs and one year for the drug paraphernalia. The judge in the trial court ordered that she serve these sentences one after the other, making it a total of eleven years. Amy argued that there were mistakes made during her trial that made her punishment too severe. One big issue was that a day planner with a graphic photo of her was accepted as evidence, even though it was meant to prove she controlled the hotel room where it was found. She argued that the planner was unfair and should not have been used against her since other personal items also proved her control over the room. The court agreed that the day planner shouldn't have been used to influence the jury because it could lead to unfair judgment against her. They believed that the mistakes in her trial did affect the outcome, leading to an excessive sentence. Therefore, they changed her sentence to six years for the controlled substance charge to be served at the same time as her one-year sentence for the paraphernalia. Overall, the court kept her conviction but lessened the time she had to serve in prison.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1165, Shawn R. Chapman appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes. In a published decision, the court decided to modify some of his sentences. One judge dissented. Chapman was found guilty of several serious charges, including first-degree rape, rape by instrumentation, kidnapping, and drug-related offenses in Logan County. He was given lengthy prison sentences, amounting to a total of 480 years. Chapman raised many reasons to challenge his convictions and sentences. He argued that the evidence presented against him was unfairly prejudicial, and he claimed that his lawyer's comments during the trial hurt his case. Chapman also thought that the jury's verdicts for some of the sexual crimes were not allowed under the law because they were too similar. He felt that the trial court did not allow enough time for his lawyer to prepare and that his sentences were too harsh. The court examined all the evidence and arguments. They found no reason to overturn the convictions but decided that some of the sentences should be changed. The judges agreed that the evidence from other crimes was relevant and that it did not unfairly influence the jury. They believed that the sentences for the rape charges were too long and changed them to life imprisonment, while still upholding the other sentences. The court concluded that there were no overall errors that would change the outcome of the trial, and they affirmed most of the decisions made by the lower court. However, one judge disagreed with the modification of the sentences, believing that the jury's decisions on the punishments were justified given the severity of the crimes Chapman committed.
In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1445, John Wesley Dickson appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of a Felony. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment of the trial court but modified his sentence to twenty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Dickson was found guilty by a jury for having illegal drugs after he had been convicted of a crime before. The jury decided that he should go to prison for forty years. Dickson thought this was too harsh and took his case to a higher court for a review. The higher court looked at all the evidence, including what happened in the original trial. The judges found that while the forty-year sentence was lawful, the remarks made by the prosecutor during the sentencing could have influenced the jury too much. The prosecutor's comments on what they thought was an appropriate punishment were seen as quite problematic. The court believed that the sentence given shocked their sense of fairness, which is a key reason for modifying sentences. Despite being allowed to recommend sentences, the prosecutor should have kept personal views out of their statements to avoid bias in the jury's decisions. Finally, the court decided to change the sentence from forty years to twenty years. They pointed out that the rules at the time of the crime did not allow applying changes in law retroactively to make the punishment lighter. Thus, only the laws that were in place when Dickson committed the crime could be applied to him. In conclusion, the court confirmed Dickson’s conviction but found the original sentence too severe, leading to a new sentence of twenty years in prison. One judge disagreed with the change in sentence, feeling that the jury's and prosecutor’s actions were acceptable.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-991, Clayton Armstead appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug (Cocaine Base) with Intent to Distribute, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction, but modify his sentence. One judge dissented on the modification of the sentence. Armstead faced serious charges after a jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years in prison and a hefty fine. He raised several issues in his appeal, arguing that the jury was given wrong information about his sentence, that he should have been allowed to argue for a lesser charge, that he faced double punishment for the same act, and that his lawyer didn’t provide adequate defense. He also claimed his punishment was too harsh. The court carefully reviewed everything from the trial and found that there was indeed a mistake in how the jury was instructed about the possible punishments for his crime. The law stated he could have faced a different range of punishment, and since this legal error was recognized, the court decided to change his sentence to 10 years in prison and a lower fine. While one part of the court agreed with this decision, another judge noted that the jury should have considered a different minimum sentence, and believed that a 24-year sentence would have been more appropriate instead of changing it to 10 years. In conclusion, Armstead kept his conviction, but his sentence was changed to be less severe than what the jury initially decided.
In OCCA case No. F 2002-1339, Marlon L. Johnson appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, First Degree Rape, and Forcible Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Rape and remand it to the district court for dismissal, while affirming the convictions for Kidnapping and Forcible Sodomy. One judge dissented. The case began when Marlon L. Johnson was found guilty of three serious crimes after a jury trial in Tulsa County. He was sentenced to thirty-five years for each crime, to be served one after the other, totaling a significant amount of time. Johnson claimed that there were many mistakes made during his trial, which he believed should lead to a reversal of his convictions or a new trial. The court looked at the arguments Johnson made. He said the charges were mixed up and that it wasn't clear whether the jury agreed on the specific facts for the rape charge. The court agreed that the jury might have relied on different facts to reach their decision about the rape charge, so they reversed that conviction. However, the court felt that there was enough evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, meaning they believed the jury was right about that part. Johnson also argued that his lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court felt his lawyer performed effectively. Other arguments made by Johnson, like improper statements from the prosecutor and issues with sentencing, were not enough to change the overall decision. The court decided that some mistakes were made, but they were not serious enough to hurt Johnson's chances for a fair trial. In the end, the court confirmed the kidnapping and forcible sodomy convictions because they believed the jury made the right decisions for those charges. However, because they couldn't be sure about the rape charge, they sent it back to be dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1517, Paul Nathan Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug offenses, including Attempt to Manufacture Methamphetamine and Possession of Methamphetamine Within 1000 Feet of a School. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences but vacated the fine imposed for one of the charges. One judge dissented. The case involved Johnson being found guilty of trying to make methamphetamine and having it near a school. He was also charged with having a gun while committing these crimes and having tools used for drug-making. The trial judge gave Johnson a long sentence and hefty fines based on the jury's recommendations. Johnson raised several complaints in his appeal. First, he argued that being convicted for both trying to make meth and having it near a school was unfair. The court decided that both charges were different enough that he could be found guilty of both without it being double punishment. Next, Johnson claimed there wasn't enough proof that he had a gun ready to use while making drugs. However, the court found that there was enough evidence showing he had the gun where he could easily get to it. Johnson also argued that he didn't really start making meth yet. The court disagreed and stated that the evidence showed he was past just planning and was actively attempting to make the drug. Finally, Johnson felt that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the judge acted within their rights in giving Johnson the sentences and fines, except for one fine, which they deemed not allowed by the law. In the end, the court confirmed most of Johnson's convictions and sentences but removed the extra fine related to one of the charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-529, Cesar Diaz, also known as Jorge Limon, appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana) and drug trafficking (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm two of his convictions but reversed nine other counts related to using a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a felony. One judge dissented. Cesar Diaz was found guilty after a jury trial that took place in March 2001. The jury sentenced him to serve thirteen years for conspiracy to traffic marijuana, fifteen years for drug trafficking, and shorter sentences for the other counts along with fines. Diaz raised several points for appeal. He challenged the validity of his confession, claimed that he was denied a fair trial because an attorney from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics acted as a special prosecutor, argued that multiple convictions for the same crimes violated double jeopardy protections, contended that evidence obtained through a wiretap was not authorized, maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the charges happened in the right location, and argued that money seized from his car should not have been used against him due to an illegal stop. The court carefully reviewed all the claims and found that sufficient evidence supported the confession being voluntary. It determined that the attorney from the Bureau of Narcotics was allowed to assist in the trial, which did not violate any rules. The court also concluded that having convictions for both conspiracy and trafficking did not violate the double jeopardy rule. However, the court agreed with Diaz’s argument on the venue issue concerning the communication facility charges. It stated that the prosecution needed to prove that the phone calls were made or received in Oklahoma County, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the counts related to using a communication facility were reversed and dismissed. In summary, the court upheld two of Diaz's convictions but ruled that the other nine were not valid due to a lack of proof regarding venue.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-999, Eric Jackson Davis appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of his convictions but reversed one of them due to lack of sufficient evidence. One member of the court dissented regarding the decision on sentencing. Davis was found guilty by a jury of five counts of First Degree Rape, two counts of Lewd Molestation, and one count of Forcible Oral Sodomy. The trial took place over three days, and the jury decided on punishments ranging from ten to fifty years for the various counts. The judge announced that Davis's sentences would be served one after the other, known as consecutive sentences. Davis raised three main issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was no evidence proving that a sexual act occurred in the case of the Forcible Oral Sodomy charge, and therefore he asked for that conviction to be overturned. Second, he claimed that there was insufficient evidence for one of the rape counts and wanted it dismissed as well. Lastly, he argued that receiving a total of two hundred forty years in prison was too severe. After looking at the facts and evidence from the trial, the court found that most of the convictions were supported by enough evidence. However, they agreed that one rape conviction should be reversed because the prosecution did not present enough proof to support that specific charge. The court did not find merit in the argument about the Forcible Oral Sodomy conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that different factors should be considered when deciding if a sentence is too harsh. While they found the trial judge's refusal to consider running the sentences at the same time was wrong, they stated that the judge's personal views about sex crimes against children influenced that decision. Therefore, the case was sent back to the lower court for resentencing, but the main convictions were upheld. In summary, the court upheld the majority of Davis's convictions and ordered the court below to reconsider how the sentences were issued, while they reversed one specific conviction due to a lack of evidence. One judge disagreed with the need for a new sentencing hearing, believing that the consequences should remain as they are given the serious nature of the crimes.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-692, William Ray Pratt appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences for most counts but reversed one count due to lack of evidence. One member of the court dissented. Pratt was found guilty of several serious crimes against a child and was sentenced to a total of 45 years in prison, with the sentences for each count set to run one after the other. He challenged his conviction on several grounds, which were carefully reviewed by the court. First, Pratt argued that evidence of other crimes against him should not have been allowed in the trial. The court found that this evidence was considered appropriate because it showed similar behavior. Next, Pratt claimed there were mistakes made during the trial that hurt his chance for a fair trial. The court disagreed, saying that the mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of his trial. Finally, Pratt mentioned that there was not enough evidence for one of the counts against him. The court agreed with this, stating that the required proof of penetration was missing for that specific count, leading them to reverse the conviction for that charge and instruct the lower court to dismiss it. Overall, while Pratt's appeal was partially successful, the court upheld most of his convictions and sentences.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-444, Eric Anthony Rivera appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Kidnapping conviction and instructed to dismiss it, while affirming the conviction for Domestic Abuse. One judge dissented. Eric was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious charges: Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. The jury gave him a ten-year prison sentence for Kidnapping and a one-year jail sentence for Domestic Abuse, which will be served at the same time. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support that Eric truly intended to kidnap the victim secretly. Because of this, the court said that the conviction for Kidnapping should be reversed, meaning they didn't agree with that part of the trial's decision. They felt Eric didn’t get a fair chance regarding that charge because the evidence didn’t meet the legal requirements. However, they found that the case against him for Domestic Abuse still stood strong and was supported by sufficient evidence, so they kept that conviction in place. The judges on the appeal discussed their different opinions about the case, with one agreeing with the majority, while others felt that the Kidnapping conviction should have stayed based on the evidence presented. In the end, the court's decision meant Eric would no longer be punished for Kidnapping but would still serve his sentence for Domestic Abuse.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-1061, Gibbs appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to eight years in prison. One judge dissented. Gibbs was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years, along with a fine and recommended counseling. Gibbs argued that the evidence against him wasn't enough to convict him. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Gibbs' defense claimed he wasn’t driving under the influence; he said his car’s accelerator stuck and that someone gave him a ride home. He also stated that his sister saw him drinking at home. The prosecutor, during the trial, made errors when questioning Gibbs about the burden of proof and his rights. Even though there were issues with the prosecutor's comments, the court believed these mistakes did not greatly affect the overall outcome of the case. While the conviction remained, the court decided to lessen Gibbs' sentence due to the errors noted during the trial.
In OCCA case No. F 2001-962, Chester Creller, Sr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Forcible Oral Sodomy, and Incest. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for First Degree Rape and Forcible Oral Sodomy but reversed the conviction for Incest. One judge dissented. Creller was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses in a trial in Muskogee County. The jury decided on heavy punishments for the crimes: 100 years for Rape, 20 years for Oral Sodomy, and 10 years for Incest. The judge planned for the sentences for Rape and Oral Sodomy to be served one after the other, while the Incest sentence would happen at the same time as the Rape sentence. Creller took his case to a higher court, arguing several points. He claimed that the court should not have tried his case, that changes made to the case were unfair, that there were problems with how the victim's testimony was used, that he should not have been convicted of both Rape and Incest for the same act, and that the way evidence was handled did not guarantee him a fair trial. The higher court carefully looked over all the arguments and decided that Creller's claim about his convictions for Rape and Incest being based on the same action was valid. Therefore, they overturned the Incest conviction but found that the other points he raised did not change the overall outcome. The court confirmed that the trial was handled correctly in most ways and said that even though there were some mistakes, they did not affect the right decision because there was strong evidence against Creller. The decision also stated that the prosecution's closing arguments did not unfairly influence the jury because the defense did not object during the trial. In summary, Creller's sentence for Incest was dismissed, but he still faced very long sentences for the other charges.
In OCCA case No. F-01-1338, Henderson appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Cocaine) and Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance but dismissed the Conspiracy charge. One judge dissented. Henderson was found guilty by a jury of distributing cocaine and conspiracy to distribute it. The jury recommended a total sentence of thirty-five years for each count, to be served one after the other, along with a hefty fine. On appeal, Henderson raised several issues. He argued that his two convictions were unfair because they were based on the same act, leading to double punishment, which is not allowed. The court agreed with this point and dismissed the conspiracy conviction. The court noted that even though a conspiracy usually stands as a separate crime, in this case, the charges were very closely related and relied on the same actions. Because of this, the law was not followed correctly. While Henderson's other claims about the trial were considered, the judges found them to lack enough merit to change the outcome. The court concluded that enough evidence supported his conviction for distributing cocaine, so that part of the case remained in place, while the conspiracy charge was dropped. Overall, the final decision was that the court upheld the guilty verdict for distribution but reversed the conspiracy conviction.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-122, Joseph Edward Peyton appealed his conviction for five counts of Robbery With Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence for Counts I and III, but reverse and dismiss Counts II, IV, and V. One member of the court dissented. Peyton was tried and found guilty of the robbery charges in Tulsa County. The judge sentenced him to ten years for Counts I and III, and five years for Counts II, IV, and V, with the sentences running consecutively. Peyton argued three main points in his appeal. First, he claimed that his statements to the police should not have been used against him because he was not in custody when he made them. The court found that the situation did not need Miranda warnings, so his statements were allowed as evidence. Second, Peyton argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his convictions on Counts II, IV, and V. The court agreed, stating that just being at the crime scene does not automatically make someone guilty. They found that the evidence against Peyton for those specific counts was not solid enough, and they reversed those convictions. Lastly, Peyton argued that his sentence was too harsh. However, the court disagreed, saying the sentence was appropriate and did not shock their conscience. In summary, the court upheld part of the conviction, but also recognized that not all the evidence supported Peyton's guilt on every count. The decisions made reflected careful consideration of what the law required in these types of cases.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-793, Robert Dale Marlow appealed his conviction for three counts of First Degree Rape, Forcible Sodomy, and First Degree Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify one of the convictions to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation and also modified the sentences for the remaining convictions. One judge dissented. Marlow was found guilty of serious crimes related to sexual offenses. The jury decided to give him a very long punishment of 100 years for each of the five crimes, which they all ran one after the other, making a total of 500 years. In the appeal, Marlow pointed out several issues with his trial. First, he argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because the judge allowed the jury to hear about another crime that wasn’t related to what he was accused of. This might have made the jury think he was a bad person and influenced their decision. Second, he said the jury was not properly instructed about one of the charges. The charge of First Degree Rape by Instrumentation did not include an important detail about “bodily harm.” Because of this, the court acknowledged that he should have been found guilty of a lesser crime instead. They also talked about how the prosecutor brought in information about other incidents that happened at a different time, which they believed could confuse the jury and affect the fairness of the trial. After looking carefully at everything, the court decided that the conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation should be changed to Second Degree Rape by Instrumentation, and they gave him a new sentence of 20 years for this crime. The other convictions were kept but the sentences were reduced to 40 years each for the remaining counts. All of the sentences will still be served one after the other. This review shows how important it is for trials to be fair, with accurate charges and instructions provided to the jury.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-338, Gene Paul Ray appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Paul Ray was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation but was not guilty on six other related charges. The jury gave him a punishment of ten years for each count, and those sentences would be served one after the other. Ray appealed for many reasons. He first argued that it was wrong for a special advocate to help prosecute him. He believed this went against his rights. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the advocate was not supposed to be involved in his case based on the law. The advocate acted like a second lawyer against Ray, which was unfair. Next, Ray claimed that the court made a mistake by allowing an expert to speak about “child sexual accommodation syndrome” before the victims testified. The court found that this was not done properly and that it could have made the jury more likely to believe the victims’ stories without proper evidence. Ray also said that it was wrong for the court to allow the parents of the child victims to testify about what their children said. This meant the jury heard claims of abuse more times than they should have, making the children's stories seem more believable than they might be. Ray argued that he was also unfairly treated when the court allowed the prosecution to talk about his past drinking problems to attack his character. The court agreed that this kind of information shouldn’t have been used in that way, especially since the prosecution did not show it related to the case. Finally, Ray argued that all these mistakes added up to make it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court agreed and decided that the combination of these errors meant he wasn't treated fairly in the trial. In summary, the court decided to reverse Ray's convictions and ordered a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself in light of the mistakes that were made during the original trial.